Evolution?

[keithy_19]

What do you feel about evolution? We had a discussion about this at my church. I'm just wondering who believes in evolution, and who doesn't?

Personally, I feel that there is evolution. But not evolution in the sense that we came from a glob of gook in the ocean. I also feel that one of the big things about believing in evolution, the fact that the strongest will survive is stupid. If you apply that to real life, it oesn't pan out. If you believe that, then what the Nazis did wasn't wrong. Just my thought on the matter.

[JPMNICK]

This is one of the most un-intelligent posts I have ever read on any message board.

[Melrapuo]

Evolution?


Good movie. You should see it.

<img src="http://www.hometown.aol.com/falsadvirtizment/images/apcsigcrap.bmp">

Somebody please help me with touching up my sigs so they don't look like shit.

My Really Crappy Site (http://www.hometown.aol.com/falsadvirtizment)

YANKEES FAN SINCE BIRTH!

[Dudeman]

This is one of the most un-intelligent posts I have ever read on any message board.



its based on the teachings of the church...


-the dude is online-

[walking joint]

HHH sucks...i hope Orton takes Evolution over

http://www.silentspic.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10004/RF.JPG
finally a sig...SatCam rules

[JPMNICK]

I don't know if Keith learned about evolution wrong from the church or wrong in science class, but I feel like he has no idea what the hell he is talking about. WHat do you feel about evolution? And how is the strong will survive stupid? There have been millions of species who have had either adapt or become extinct due to weather changes and the like.
And what the hell does "when you apply thta to real life it does not pan out" mean. Apply the strong will survive? Prove other wise.

Also, bringing the Nazi's into this just shows how stupid you are. Evolution is a natural progression of a species. Not one man's sick attempt to create some fucked up world.

[SatCam]

why do we always turn his threads into "lets get this locked"?

<img src=http://satelitecam.com.co.nr/sig78_general_katylina.jpg align=right><A HREF=http://www.satelitecam.tk>Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</A> | <a href=http://www.oldronandfezpages.tk>WNEW Ron and Fez Pages</a> | <a href=http://www.robanddan.tk/>RobandDan.tk</a> | Sig by the wonderful Katylina | [color=White]Don't Steel him from me!

[Dudeman]

I can't wait for the exciting follow-up post:

Gravity?


-the dude is online-

[SatCam]

why do we always turn his threads into "lets get this locked"?

OH! I figure it out. Because it's fun!

<img src=http://satelitecam.com.co.nr/sig78_general_katylina.jpg align=right><A HREF=http://www.satelitecam.tk>Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</A> | <a href=http://www.oldronandfezpages.tk>WNEW Ron and Fez Pages</a> | <a href=http://www.robanddan.tk/>RobandDan.tk</a> | Sig by the wonderful Katylina | [color=White]Don't Steel him from me!

[Dudeman]

why do we always turn his threads into "lets get this locked"?



its the ronfez.net version of survival of the fittest


-the dude is online-

[Melrapuo]

its the ronfez.net version of survival of the fittest


OOOOOO!!! NIIIIICE!!! ::High Five::

Seriously, good line. Works well with the topic at hand. ...no clue what that topic is, but it works!

<img src="http://www.hometown.aol.com/falsadvirtizment/images/apcsigcrap.bmp">

Somebody please help me with touching up my sigs so they don't look like shit.

My Really Crappy Site (http://www.hometown.aol.com/falsadvirtizment)

YANKEES FAN SINCE BIRTH!

[SatCam]

Last time I checked, not many people on here are "fit" if ya know what I mean.

<img src=http://satcam.com.co.nr/sig80_general_hillaryduff.jpg align=right><A HREF=http://www.satelitecam.tk>Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</A> | <a href=http://www.oldronandfezpages.tk>WNEW Ron and Fez Pages</a> | <a href=http://www.robanddan.tk/>RobandDan.tk</a> | [color=White]Don't Steel him from me!

[McNabbShouldDie]

SatCam, that is one hot ass Hilary Duff sigpic.

Nice job.

<center><img src=http://members.aol.com/mcnabbshoulddie/myhomepage/rfnetmcnabbshoulddie.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US>
I guess ill just never get over this sig.</center>

[SatCam]

Thank you. And owning her DVD to that movie she has (not to mention watching it 4 times) I might just make some more ;p

<img src=http://satcam.com.co.nr/sig80_general_hillaryduff.jpg align=right><A HREF=http://www.satelitecam.tk>Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</A> | <a href=http://www.oldronandfezpages.tk>WNEW Ron and Fez Pages</a> | <a href=http://www.robanddan.tk/>RobandDan.tk</a> | [color=White]Don't Steel him from me!

[mikeyboy]

Cut the personal attacks. If you can't argue for or against a post without resorting to attacks, don't post.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=mikeyboy">
Ron & Fez Show Log (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)

[SatCam]

Cut the personal attacks. If you can't argue for or against a post without resorting to attacks, don't post.

See! I tolded you guys that we'd get yelleded at but you didnt listen!

Now I'm grounded.

<img src=http://satcam.com.co.nr/sig80_general_hillaryduff.jpg align=right><A HREF=http://www.satelitecam.tk>Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</A> | <a href=http://www.oldronandfezpages.tk>WNEW Ron and Fez Pages</a> | <a href=http://www.robanddan.tk/>RobandDan.tk</a> | [color=White]Don't Steel him from me!

[sr71blackbird]

How can anyone deny evolution isnt/hasnt taken place? There is a fossil record that proves it. The church has its own interpretation of things, because its holy literature was written before we understood such things.
I wont slam anyone for not having the belief that we are not a kind of ape. If you want to believe that we arent, thats fine, as long as it isnt rammed down my throat that your belief is different than mine.



<center>
http://www.osirusonline.com/sr71.gif </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to Reefdwella for the sig-pic!</B></center>

<center><B><strike>Folgers and Lava</strike></B></center>

<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

[Melrapuo]

I believe that evolution and creation might sorta intertwine with each other. Like I believe we evolved from other animals and stuff, and yet I believe there's this divine power or something. I mean, come on. If there is a whole universe and stuff, there has to be a reason for it.

<img src="http://www.hometown.aol.com/falsadvirtizment/images/apcsigcrap.bmp">

Somebody please help me with touching up my sigs so they don't look like shit.

My Really Crappy Site (http://www.hometown.aol.com/falsadvirtizment)

YANKEES FAN SINCE BIRTH!

[FUNKMAN]

evúoúluútion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.


http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/index_files/guards.jpg

i believe in evolution

<img src="http://64.177.177.182/katylina/funkmansig.jpg">
i just got sig'd by the sweetest Kat...

[SatCam]

evolution, as I understand it:
infant> child> tween> teenager> young adult> adult> senior citizen

<img src=http://satcam.com.co.nr/sig80_general_hillaryduff.jpg align=right><A HREF=http://www.satelitecam.tk>Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</A> | <a href=http://www.oldronandfezpages.tk>WNEW Ron and Fez Pages</a> | <a href=http://www.robanddan.tk/>RobandDan.tk</a> | [color=White]Don't Steel him from me!

[TooCute]

Electric Sex, please go learn more about evolution before you try to discuss it again. Your post displays gross ignorance of the subject.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0517123207/qid=1074476188/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/002-9734086-1990448">This book</a> is a good start.

Also, there are a few threads on evolution on the board.

<a href="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/Forum/52/Topic/23722/page/Question_for_Too_Cute.htm">Here</a> is one.


<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[keithy_19]

Do you believe we came from goo that was in the ocean?

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/electricsexsig.jpg
Much thanks to Katylina

[TheGameHHH]

humans came from rocks, everybody knows that

<IMG SRC="http://home.comcast.net/~rmfallon/RFnetHHH.jpg">

[FUNKMAN]

http://store6.yimg.com/I/5thavenuecandlesandcollectible_1770_3433676

<img src="http://64.177.177.182/katylina/funkmansig.jpg">
i just got sig'd by the sweetest Kat...

[TooCute]

Do you believe we came from goo that was in the ocean?


No I think that God created us in his image.



I also hope and pray that you understand sarcasm.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[Melrapuo]

I don't believe we came from any primordial ooze. I think we were created by something, but I don't know what. I guess it was just chance. Just like how the idea of us having self-awareness -something that a majority of living organisms don't have - is probably given to us only by chance.

<img src="http://www.hometown.aol.com/falsadvirtizment/images/apcsigcrap.bmp">

Somebody please help me with touching up my sigs so they don't look like shit.

My Really Crappy Site (http://www.hometown.aol.com/falsadvirtizment)

YANKEES FAN SINCE BIRTH!

[reeshy]

I am a firm believer in the theory of evolution!! I mean, Jesus, half the people I have to deal with on a daily basis just learned how to stand upright in the last few years!!!

[center]<IMG SRC=http://64.177.177.182/katylina/mrbadtouchsig.jpg>

[MizzleTizzle]

Don't sweat it peeps I aint as good as Too Cute of the Horde King, but I know a little bit from studying and stuff.

Keith [aka Electric Sex for those who have tuned in recently] asks a valid question. The very first one. Then...

OK, real quick the 'glob of gook' thingy is one thing, and the Nazis something else entirely, but, they are indeed Both evolution.

Shortest fucking Evolution lesson ever; and not bad, IMHO.

Natural Selection:
1. Most species reproduce way more offspring then can possibly survive.
2. Most species have mutations, that are random, and, so offspring are a bit like their parents, but not exact copies [even in asexual reproduction like an amoeba splitting it wont be 100.00% the same because of these mutations, errors when splitting, etc.]
3. In Natural Selection, those offspring that survive, survive. They need not be the 'strongest' or the 'best'; they just happen, by chance, to have, in that little difference, something that makes them a bit more 'survivable'; a better chance of making it to adulthood.
4. Those who make it to adulthood reproduce, and over and over, those offspring that have some edge make it. Over a gazillion generations of billions of years, these gradual subtle changes result in large ones, eventually to the point where you have two lines of offspring that are so different, that they can't reproduce. That, by definition, is a new species.

We did not come from monkeys; evolution never says that. Humans and apes, if you go far back enough in time, will shar a common ancestor. Please re-read that; it is the most seemingly subtle, but crucial difference.

Apes do not turn into People. We are two lines that if you go far back enough, share a common ancestor.

And then keep going. There is a common ancestor from which all mammals arose. The theorists today believe it make have been a shrew-sized little land animal that was able to make it through what killed off the vast majority of life 65M years ago, in the K-T Extinction. The one shown in the beginning sequence of Armageddon.

There have been others earlier then that, and much more severe [Permian].

So: You Have

Lots Of Shit Reproducing...

Lots of shit mutating...

An earth that is dynamic, changing; hit with solar flares, lightning, hurricanes, the whole deck of cards of mother nature.

Those three combine to shape the life that we see around us.

FYI: Darwin was neither the first to propose the idea of evolution, nor even the first to advance natural selection as the explanation of how new species arise. So cut Charlie some slack; he was a sick-ish man who really disliked much of his journeys, and waffled endlessly before publishing...

So why are Nazis also evolution?

When the selection isn't 'natural'.

When the selection is Artificial.

Ok lets call this the sequel. Part two. Humans show up on planet earth [read above] with some crazy shit called the cerebellum and the cerebral cortex. This is the point of departure for you. It's what gives humans the ability to do what no other [?] species can do. We can change ourselves. And the earth around us.

Over the last few tens of thousands of years, we reshaped a lot. We took 4 species of the 1000s of plant species: Wheat, Rice, Beans, Corn; and decided, this is the good stuff. Let's take this stuff and plant it everywhere. Get rid of that grass and those weeds and lets plant this stuff. = Agricultural Revolution.

We saw some cool wolves and cows and pigs and sheep and said the same thing; these ones here, these we like, we're gonna start taking an active interest in these animals. Lets grab a bunch.

And when we found a few cows that have a big rack of teats, a milk machine, we grabbed it, and had it fuck everything around it, in hopes of making more like that. With the wolves it was those that started a sorta symbiotic relationship where we started breeding out the agressiveness in them, and then even the appearences we liked, and strengthened those lines, and, again, 100,000 generations later; the entire line of domesticat

[mdr55]

Evolution? What's that.

God created the universe in 7 days. Then created Man (called him Adam). Took one of his ribs and made Eve (the 1st female). Somehow a snake was involved (most likely little Adam- but when things go wrong everyone blames the DEVIL!) and Adam and Eve did the dirty deed. They liked sex so much they kept pumping out those little babies like jackrabbits. God couldn't afford them to live in his Garden of Paradise so he kicked them out to care for themselves. Adam and Eve's children eventually had sex with each other and that's why the human race is so F*ck-up. (Hence that's where they get the saying siblings and cousins shouldn't procreate with each other).

Does that clear it up for you?

(Place YOUR AD here) Call now!

[KC2OSO]

I'm still amazed that things fly. Text

This message was edited by Fester on 1-18-04 @ 9:28 PM

[TooCute]

2. Most species have mutations, that are random, and, so offspring are a bit like their parents, but not exact copies [even in asexual reproduction like an amoeba splitting it wont be 100.00% the same because of these mutations, errors when splitting, etc.]
Can't think of any way a speces wouldn't have mutations. Any species in existence today is the product of mutations that occured in its ancestors.
...to the point where you have two lines of offspring that are so different, that they can't reproduce. That, by definition, is a new species.
Sort of, but not necessarily. That's been discussed in another thread somewhere.

We did not come from monkeys; evolution never says that. Humans and apes, if you go far back enough in time, will shar a common ancestor. Please re-read that; it is the most seemingly subtle, but crucial difference.
Well, given that "monkey" isn't exactly a valid cladistic designation, actually there was a "monkey" somewhere that did become a human. That "monkey" also led to chimpanzees, goriillas, gibbons and orangutans. The word "monkey" generally describes primates that have opposable thumbs, color vision, etc. etc. etc.

Apes do not turn into People.

No, they didn't, because humans ARE apes, assuming you use the word "ape" in its usualevolutionary context, that is, to describe the superfamily Hominoidea, which contains humans and the other aforementioned species. Possibly you are confusing this with the sort of outdated paraphyleted grouping of the "Pongidae", which are the Hominoidea minus humans.

We are two lines that if you go far back enough, share a common ancestor. (that was for all intents and purposes a monkey)

FYI: Darwin was neither the first to propose the idea of evolution, nor even the first to advance natural selection as the explanation of how new species arise.

Well, for all intents and purposes he was, I mean really, who counts Wallace????



<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[Melrapuo]

So why are Nazis also evolution?

When the selection isn't 'natural'.

When the selection is Artificial.


Ok, NOT sympathizing with the Nazis, and not saying that what they did was good. What I'm about to say is more of an annoyance or a misunderstanding.

I don't agree with people who think whatever humans do isn't "natural" and is "artificial" instead. We seem to separate ourselves from Nature, as if we are better or higher than Nature itself, when in reality we are just part of it.

I don't know if we think that the idea of having self-awareness separates us from being part of Nature, or if it's something that we just do.

Now, what the Nazis did was try to create a "supreme race" or whatever they called it, and they did this by eliminating what they thought were the weaker humans. In a way, it is artificial because it was one man's sick, twisted idea that his followers carried out. So you can agree with that. But in another way, it could be seen as natural, just as much as disasters and tidal waves and plagues are all natural too. I don't know where I'm going with this, but let's see what kind of responses there are.

<img src="http://www.hometown.aol.com/falsadvirtizment/images/apcsigcrap.bmp">

Somebody please help me with touching up my sigs so they don't look like shit.

My Really Crappy Site (http://www.hometown.aol.com/falsadvirtizment)

YANKEES FAN SINCE BIRTH!

[Dudeman]

So why are Nazis also evolution?

When the selection isn't 'natural'.

When the selection is Artificial.

as try to create a "supreme race" or whatever they called it, and they did this by eliminating what they thought were the weaker humans. In a way, it is artificial because it was one man's sick, twisted idea that his followers carried out.

Bottom line though, Hitler and the Nazi party (at least as it was in the 30's and 40's) aren't around anymore. the jews still are.


-the dude is online-

[newport king]

I also feel that one of the big things about believing in evolution, the fact that the strongest will survive is stupid. If you apply that to real life, it oesn't pan out. If you believe that, then what the Nazis did wasn't wrong

um, what?
http://www.celan-projekt.de/bilder/hitler.jpg
you gotta admit though, those were snazzy uniforms.

~a newport king joint~

[TheMojoPin]

I don't understand why us evolving from "goo" or "ooze" can't mesh with religious ideas. Or other scientific ideas. Stuff like the "Big Bang", or us evolving from essentially nothing, no matter how long it took, still seems pretty miraculous and impressive to me. If something set the stage for that all to happen, doesn't make he/she/it any less of a "god" in my book than if they did it in seven days. Why does it all have to be practically instantaneous for it to be subscribed to by religious officials?

And the Nazis had nothing to do with evolution. Stuff like that is indeed "artificial". Pretty much all other species kill out of a NEED to do so for their own survival. Anything else is essentially insanity, and NOT part of any "natural" plan or evolution.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Arienette]

the fact that the strongest will survive is stupid. If you apply that to real life, it oesn't pan out. If you believe that, then what the Nazis did wasn't wrongso, let me parse this... the nazis are basically no longer around, and there are still lots of jews. so, you're saying that, because of this, the idea that the strongest will survive hasn't panned out in reality. that would mean that, what, the nazis were the strongest? that a sick leader hell bent on exterminating huge groups of people because they didn't match up with his ideal is, what, better? as i read this, what you've said either makes no sense or you're a nazi supporter. which will it be?

I don't agree with people who think whatever humans do isn't "natural" and is "artificial" instead. We seem to separate ourselves from Nature, as if we are better or higher than Nature itselfi don't think that this is true at all. if anything, i think most people regard the "artificial" as beneath the "natural." and when humans do things that are against what would happen naturally (ie: without their intervention), i'd call that artificial.

<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/aripenguin.gif" height=100 width=300</img><br><br>it's harder not to drown</center>

[DC Reed]

TextI don't understand why us evolving from "goo" or "ooze" can't mesh with religious ideas. Or other scientific ideas.


Because ever since the Catholic Church was founded, they have been teaching we were all created by god. And they believed they were the only way to worship, hence why there was an Inquisition and the Crusades. They don't take kindly to new ideas. Some protestant groups (methodist, babtist) at least acknowledge evolution and let you decide what to believe.

Basically the Catholic Church is to busy to read Orgin of Species and visit the Galapagos in-between altar boy ass rammings.

<IMG SRC="http://dcreed.freeservers.com/images/dcrampage.gif">

Reed 0 Fallon 2
Dolphins vs Patriots


<marquee behavoir

[MizzleTizzle]

Well again, I think it's comparing apples and bassoons.

'strongest' 'best' 'fittest' can be many different things under many different crierita, hence I don't use the ill-conceived phrase 'survival of the fittest' which some aruge is a tautology.

Under what criteria?

Because often here, if we're talking the strongest in terms of who has won and lost the wars, the 'strongest' might be defined as those woth the best or biggest or most bombs, or planes or troops, or ...

In biology, artifical vs natural selection is about direction; evolution has no real direction. Someone put up the graphic of the hunch over ape-like creature evolving into homo sapiens. That is the iconography of a myth, as Gould called it.

As if we were an 'end result'. We aren't. No species is, evolutionary stasis noted.

[sr71blackbird]

As far as the "ooze and goo" crowd go, keep in mind that if your an omnipotant being (all powerful) than nothing is beyond you. Here is a stretch;
is God so powerful, that he doesnt "need" to exist in order to be "real"? WE need to exist to be real, but is requiring a being with Gods power to abide by our own rules kind of saying that we decide what God can and cant do?
And as I said earlier, we are a kind of ape. As a form of life that has our intellectual ability, to concieve of things beyond our relm of experience, even our understanding, we are as far above any ape as they are above an amoeba. Think about it, we can imagine a being that can do things that we cannot!

<center>
http://www.osirusonline.com/sr71.gif </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to Reefdwella for the sig-pic!</B></center>

<center><B><strike>Folgers and Lava</strike></B></center>

<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

[keithy_19]

No, I am not a Nazi Supporter, althought I do have blonde hair and blue eyes.

The reason I brought up the Nazis is because, I have heard the phrase survival of the fittest. If you belive in that, then what the nazis did wasn't wrong at all because it was simply survival of the fittest.

I think that what the nazis did was horrifying and I'm happy they are all burning in hell.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/electricsexsig.jpg
Much thanks to Katylina

[TooCute]

TextI don't understand why us evolving from "goo" or "ooze" can't mesh with religious ideas. Or other scientific ideas.


Because ever since the Catholic Church was founded, they have been teaching we were all created by god.

Er, I do believe his point was that why can't some people believe that God created evolution as a mechanism for the creation of humans.

evolution has no real direction

Sure it does. Things evolve in a direction such that they are better suited for their environment. The only problem with that is that the environment is constantly changing, ergo, that direction is constantly changing. But that doesn't mean that there's no direction!

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[Yerdaddy]

If you want to NOT understand modern human events like WWII and the Holocaust, then try and explain them in terms of biological evolution. The only relevant role I can see in those events is Hitler's Final Solution being an attempt to manipulate evolution by manipulatiing the racial "purity" within whatever regions he could control. Otherwise it's apples and bassoons.

Human evolution is a process of change in the human species, (as it is defined by us), over the course of the last 30 million years or so, (scientists correct me if I'm wrong please). A single war or act of genocide is not going to effect the species as a whole in any significant way so it's not practical to even think of it in evolutionary terms. But what is commonly confused, (and usually by people who are averse to the concepts and thus the understanding of evolution), is the difference between cultural evolution and biological evolution. Wars and other individual human acts are much more accessable through the study of human evolution, or anthropology.

You can see the effects of evolution in human activities today in sociological trends like obesity. In the bulk of time that the human beings have existed we have been hunter-gatherers. Biology dictates that the human body needs certain nutrients, like sugar, fats and salt in order to function. So the human brain evolved mechanisms like cravings and sensory pleasure from seeking and consuming foods that contain these elements. Over time, cultural evolution has built up more complex and efficient systems for providing these elements, those biological impulses to consume these nutrients far more than required, and is even beneficial. So we crave and thus consume more of these nutrients because they used to be hard to find and we needed the innate incentive to seek them out. If the other environmental factors in human evolution were still the same, (small isolated populations, hunter-gathering societies, etc.), but these elements were abundant, then survival, and thus evolution would favor offspring born with weaker innate craving mechanisms for these nutrients and stronger innate cravings for less abundant nutrients like fiber or iron or foods rich in vitamins. Over many generations human beings would come to like broccoli and brussel sprouts more than ice cream and cheeseburgers.

In short, I think there are aspects of human life that evolution helps us understand, and that help us understand evolution, and aspects that don't. The first step is understanding the difference. This is also why the phrase "survival of the fittest" is antequated among evolutionary biologists, and misleading to the general perception of evolution. In fact it's usually brought up in evolutionary debates by creationists looking for a red herring to debunk the "theory" of evolution to their audience.

Windbag Faction

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
TEAR THE BITCH APART!

[JohnnyCash]

My brain hurts.

<IMG SRC="http://www.osirusonline.com/cashsig.gif">
Thanks to Reefdwella for the great Sig Pic.

[bigbaldirish]

let's talk about the chimpanazi, an evil race of chimps led by one with a penchant for charlie chan. ready to kill all the bonobos on the planet because as we all know chimpanzees are the dominant simians.

... sounds like the next planet of the apes movie

<img src="http://hometown.aol.com/societyofirish/images/bbisig3.jpg" width=300 height=100></htpdiv>
www.societyofmyera.50megs.com (http://www.societyofmyera.50megs.com)

[TooCute]

But what is commonly confused, (and usually by
people who are averse to the concepts and thus the
understanding of evolution), is the difference between
cultural evolution and biological evolution.

<a href="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/
viewmessages.cfm/Forum/69/Topic/24971/page/
Eugenics_are_dead___but_shouldn_t_be_.htm">Thread
</a> that discusses human evolution (or the potential lack
thereof).

This is also why the phrase "survival of the fittest"
is antequated among evolutionary biologists,

Not true at all. But then again, we actually know what
"fittest" means in this context.



<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/
toocute3.gif">

This message was edited by TooCute on 1-19-04 @ 1:18 AM

[DC Reed]

r, I do believe his point was that why can't some people believe that God created evolution as a mechanism for the creation of humans.


Ahhh, I missed that part of it all. But even if they tried, that would be going against 900 years of preaching, and no church group wants to admit thier wrong, in fear theyll lose followers. Plus that goes against the bible, which would be a big no no as it would be changing the bible and faith to support darwin. and changing the bible is a big no no.

<IMG SRC="http://dcreed.freeservers.com/images/dcrampage.gif">

Reed 0 Fallon 2
Dolphins vs Patriots


<marquee behavoir

This message was edited by DC Reed on 1-19-04 @ 2:14 AM

[East Side Dave]

Jesus, Keithy, it just, well it just pisses me off that people won't answer your question seriously. Shit. Shit, I says. Well I says shit, Keithy, this evolution question well, what you gotta do is, see, Keith, what you gotta do is find that Darwin character. Now I hoid he's (yes a'm suddnly a-speakin' lak a'm frum nawleans) an' wha'd we do is we say, "Chucky?!?! You ain't no magician!!!" Den we go to Annie Rice's house an' roast things!

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif>
Big Ass Mafia

Click this link (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/thenight/ppr/index.shtml) to hear my show on Jersey's 90.5 The Night FM; (weeknights)-
Sunday night/Monday morning through Thursday night/Friday morning- 3 to 5 AM.

[DESERTEAGLE.50]

hey, ppl...
while I dont think a discussion at this level of mind is ever bad, the ego posts and spouting of one's "true and correk knowledge" is getting silly...
I mean, how do we even know we're actually "alive" right now..let alone the end result of evolution?

think deeper...the fact that we're even to the point of discussing this type of issue on an internet message forum is one kind of proof of something...
somewhere...

but before I can agree or disagree whether we've evolved or not, I need to find out if we're even actually "alive" like we think we are...

we get our doctrines from our parents and our view of supposed "facts" from other ppl...

what you consider the color blue might not be the same as mine, but we both agree something is the color blue, however we believe it...

Im more concerned over what this "consciousness" really is than whether we have evolved or not...
we prolly have, but maybe not...I cant be for sure...

frankly...Im not even sure we "live" on planet Erf...only reason I think we do is b/c thats what Ive been told...

as far as any of us really know, everything we know as past history is all made up...who can prove it? why should I believe it? I never met Abe Lincoln or Jesus...

Im just saying that the question of our evolution does more than illicite a response to that one question...it dredges up deeper questions for me...

have you ever had a dream SO real that you were surprised when you woke up in your bed? me too

Ive wondered for a while now that if a plane full of 100 ppl crasht in a flash and everyone died at the same time...would any of those souls even notice? would their "reality" continue on as if nothing happened? who knows? someone somewhere...

so, to answer the question...YES, I think evolution has occured...and I think its ultimate purpose was to get us to the point where we question it...

now think deeper

I like to use the 3 periods alot

FINGA FONGA FINGA FONGA MOTHER FAH
<IMG SRC=http://satcam.com.co.nr/sig_deserteagle3.gif>

[Yerdaddy]

For the first time ever East Side Dave DOESN'T seem high.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
TEAR THE BITCH APART!

[MizzleTizzle]

Sure it does. ...that direction is constantly changing. But that doesn't mean that there's no direction!


Please, What is the direction of evolution; if it has a direction what is it, and why is it moving in that direction?




This is also why the phrase "survival of the fittest" isn't used by..."


A google search will reveal many, many cites that debate the weakness of the term sirvival of the fittest:

Tautology:

Q: Who survives?
A: Those that are fittest?
Q: Ok, who are the fittest?
A: Those that survive.

From Talkorigins; one of the leading evolution info sites:

"Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about evolution. Darwin himself never used the phrase. What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success.

This message was edited by MizzleTizzle on 1-19-04 @ 8:02 AM

[Katylina]

Do you believe we came from goo that was in the ocean?


We certainly came from goo, but none that could be found in the ocean. ;)

<center>
<marquee>I'm not in love, but I'm gonna fuck you, till somebody better comes along. I'm full of freakiness, so give my kat a kiss. My neck, my back, lick my pussy and my crack</marquee>
<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=katylina">
<a href="http://www.pagerealm.com/katylina/index.html" target=_new>Katylina's Web Page</a>
<br>
<br>
<b>Thank you to ADF, Fluff, and AG for making certain sigs for me!</b>

[sr71blackbird]

What will be the evolutionary results of taking someones words, seperate them from what was written, dissect them, point out their errors and point to them and say that your statement was incorrect because of A,B,C,and D, in regards to future friendly idea exchange? I dont mean to say that it is always bad to point out when someone makes an error, but since we are discussing theorieticals here, lets not insult each other, because it removes the possibility of civil discord.

<center>
http://www.osirusonline.com/sr71.gif </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to Reefdwella for the sig-pic!</B></center>

<center><B><strike>Folgers and Lava</strike></B></center>

<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

[TooCute]

Please, What is the direction of evolution; if it has a direction what is it, and why is it moving in that direction?


I thought I already answered that - its direction is that that makes an species more suited for its environment. The environment is constantly changing, hence, that direction is constantly changing.

I did not say that evolution has a direction for a purpose, but merely a direction. It's the theory of the n-dimensional hyperspace. In each aspect (each 'dimension' for example, what food it eats, how much it eats, how much it reproduces, which animals it competes with, etc. etc. etc.) of an animal's existence (there is more than 1 or 2 or 1000; for simplicity, there are n - now wrap your head around THAT!! lol - usually it is visualized simply as 3-d; you have aspects of the environment on the x and y axes, and the z axis is your fitness - now just imagine an infinite number of x and y axes) there is an optimal place for it to be. This n-dimensional hyperspace is the animal's adaptive landscape (phrase coined by Sewall Wright); where it is in this landscape is called its "niche". Imagine that the landscape has peaks and valleys and that the animal is a ball in this landscape; depending on where an animal is in this landscape a little push can push it off a peak or into a valley. An animal that is in a valley will take a large push to push it out of the valley - otherwise, despite various mutations, chances are it will continue to evolve in the direction that will put it into the bottom of th valley.

An example of a valley for many animals on a very very large, coarse scale could be an ice age; it is a pretty well documented that prolonged cold weather favors larger bodies. You can see this today in many species of animals that have ranges that span warm to cold environments; the cold weather forms are almost uniformly larger, whether you look at fish, wolves, whatever. When ice ages have occured in the past, directional selection for larger bodies has occured. As soon as the environment warms, the advantage for large bodies often ceases and animals may revert to smaller bodied forms. A good exaple of this is the cheetah; they might be small today, but their ancestors lived in a much cooler environment and were much bigger.

It's not an easy concept to express in text; any basic ecology text book shool have diagrams and explanations of an n-dimensional hyperspace and niche theory. You've probably simply forgotten.

A google search will reveal many, many cites that debate the weakness of the term sirvival of the fittest:

Tautology:

Q: Who survives?
A: Those that are fittest?
Q: Ok, who are the fittest?
A: Those that survive.

From Talkorigins; one of the leading evolution info sites:

"Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about evolution. Darwin himself never used the phrase. What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success.


I don't really see how what websites directed at the general public have to do with what I said about the phrase; nobody said it was an ideal phrase to use to describe the theory of natural selection, and certainly not to the people who are the usual audience of websites like talkorigins; Yerdaddy said that it's an antiquated phrase and I was just saying that no, we still learn it (and by we, I suppose I mean evolutionary biologists and ecologists) and it still applies, assuming that you understand what the term "fittest" means. Yeah, it's a tautology. What is your point?

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[East Side Dave]

I thought I already answered that - its direction is that that makes an species more suited for its environment. The environment is constantly changing, hence, that direction is constantly changing.


And I agree with you on this point. My point merely is that Larry Appleton, and I think I'm right on this one, Larry DID NOT evolve from Balki Bartocomus. That's all I was sayin'.

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif>
Big Ass Mafia

Click this link (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/thenight/ppr/index.shtml) to hear my show on Jersey's 90.5 The Night FM; (weeknights)-
Sunday night/Monday morning through Thursday night/Friday morning- 3 to 5 AM.

[FUNKMAN]

We certainly came from goo


then i guess we are all a bunch of 'goobers'?


"Howdy little cousins!"
http://www.oldtimecandy.com/images/candypix-pages/goobers_small.jpg

<img src="http://64.177.177.182/katylina/funkmansig.jpg">
i just got sig'd by the sweetest Kat...

[TooCute]

And I agree with you on this point. My point merely is that Larry Appleton, and I think I'm right on this one, Larry DID NOT evolve from Balki Bartocomus. That's all I was sayin'.

Yeah? Well Melanie Wilson says you're WRONG. So smoke THAT.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[A.J.]

Do you believe we came from goo that was in the ocean?

Yes because Q said so in the last episode of Star Trek The Next Generation.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[East Side Dave]

Yeah? Well Melanie Wilson says you're WRONG. So smoke THAT.



*smoking Melanie Wilson*


STOP wimpering, Melanie, this has to be done. For science...

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif>
Big Ass Mafia

Click this link (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/thenight/ppr/index.shtml) to hear my show on Jersey's 90.5 The Night FM; (weeknights)-
Sunday night/Monday morning through Thursday night/Friday morning- 3 to 5 AM.

[MizzleTizzle]

It's not an easy concept to express in text; any basic ecology text book shool have diagrams and explanations of an n-dimensional hyperspace and niche theory. You've probably simply forgotten.


Incorrect assumption.

All I am asking; even if it is constantly chnging, what is the direction of evolution? If the answer is 'better suited for the environment' why do we see animals that evolved such that they were increasingly *less* suited for the environment; and died out?

So is the direction towards evolution is;

better?
worse?
bigger?
smaller?
more complex?
less complex?

Something else?

Oh; and many of these are rhetorical.


it is a pretty well documented that prolonged cold weather favors larger bodies.


Q: In the mass extinctions; usually associated with ecological disaster and disruption of the food chain a la nuclear winter, which land animals will tend to survive; the large or the small?

-----------------------

just below the surface of what we might call out ordinary lives lie riches


This message was edited by MizzleTizzle on 1-19-04 @ 4:16 PM

[ADF]

Q: In the mass extinctions; usually associated with ecological disaster and disruption of the food chain a la nuclear winter, which land animals will tend to survive; the large or the small?


If you're referring to the extinction of the dinosaurs which, by and large, were much larger than the mammals of the time, I'd assume that the "larger" dinosaurs died out in the cold because of rapid environmental change and loss of food sources. The smaller, warm-blooded mammals were better able to adapt to the change in environment. I don't see how this disproves the theory TooCute was discussing. My answer would be whatever animal is best able to adapt to the change in environment, regardless of size.

<center><img src = "http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/friars.gif"><br>I'm so glad the cheat is not dead.</center>

This message was edited by Tall_James on 02-30-06 @ 13:48 PM

[TooCute]

All I am asking; even if it is constantly chnging, what is the direction of evolution? If the answer is 'better suited for the environment' why do we see animals that evolved such that they were increasingly *less* suited for the environment; and died out?

Animals do not evolve to be less suited for their environments. In the cases where this seems to be the case, it is likely that the animals were either evolving to be more suited for their environment in some dimension that you haven't figured out yet. Either that, or they were subject to some other force, for example, genetic drift.

Even so, in most instances the assumption is that animals go extinct either because they couldn't evolve fast enough to keep up with their environment (and you understand that "environment" includes not only its physical habitat, but other animals that are living at the same time and competing with it, affecting its competitors, etc etc) or because they evolved to the extent that they were called something else.


So is the direction towards evolution is;

better?
worse?
bigger?
smaller?
more complex?
less complex?

Something else?

All, or none, of the above. It depends entirely on the animal's adaptive landscape. Which axis of the n-dimensional hyperspace the animal is maximizing its fitness on may not necessarily be immediately obvious.

If you're asking for a blanket statement along the lines of "Evolution leads to more complex animals", then clearly you're missing the point. Again, there is a distinction between directed (which implies a purpose or a final end) evoluton and the simple idea that evolution has a direction.

Of COURSE it has a direction; it is not random. It is a random process but the outcome of that process is not random. If it were, then why do we talk of natural selection and differential survival of offspring? If it were random, there would be no such thing as selection. Again, for the third time, the direction is towards an animal better suited (that therefore reproduces more than other individuals and therefore passes its traits on to a larger proportion of the next generation than another, less suited individual) at that point in time to its environment.





it is a pretty well documented that prolonged cold weather favors larger bodies.


Q: In the mass extinctions; usually associated with ecological disaster and disruption of the food chain a la nuclear winter, which land animals will tend to survive; the large or the small?

What does your question have to do with my assertion? (here's a hint: nothing)

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[keithy_19]

Let me just say I belive there is evolution. But I also believe God created the world and everything in it.

Meaning: I believe that species have evolved. But I do not believe that they have evovled from one species to another. For instance, I don't think that a reptile evolved into a bird.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/electricsexsig.jpg
Much thanks to Katylina

[TooCute]

Meaning: I believe that species have evolved. But I do not believe that they have evovled from one species to another. For instance, I don't think that a reptile evolved into a bird.

So what HAS evolved? And how?

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[zoom2457]

K-T Extinction


The Kid-Toucher Extinction???

I don't think this happened yet.



"Excuse me, excuse me I believe you have my stapler"

[FUNKMAN]

It would've been nice if humans had inherited some of the traits of a reptile like the snake. A snake can eat one big meal and not have to eat again for weeks or months. I just think about all the time we use to purchase food, cook it, clean up afterwards, on a daily basis and it would certainly free-up alot of time...

that's all...

<img src="http://64.177.177.182/katylina/funkmansig.jpg">
i just got sig'd by the sweetest Kat...

[MizzleTizzle]

The direction of evolution isn't towards more complex. Or less complex.

[EDIT: ok, a hint for everybody, in a question: Q: What exploded in the Cambrian Explosion?]

-----------

just below the surface of what we might call our ordinary lives lie riches

This message was edited by MizzleTizzle on 1-19-04 @ 7:44 PM

[sr71blackbird]

It would've been nice if humans had inherited some of the traits of a reptile like the snake


Its called the "R Complex"...the seat of totalitarianism

<center>
http://www.osirusonline.com/sr71.gif </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to Reefdwella for the sig-pic!</B></center>

<center><B><strike>Folgers and Lava</strike></B></center>

<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

[sr71blackbird]

Mike, I think we got far more complex as we evolved, intellectually in our case. Other creatures evolved complex abilities ( like that fish with the glowing lure on its nose).

<center>
http://www.osirusonline.com/sr71.gif </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to Reefdwella for the sig-pic!</B></center>

<center><B><strike>Folgers and Lava</strike></B></center>

<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

[Reephdweller]

http://www.interlog.com/~pjenkins/jpegs/wink.gif

<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3">
<B>Horde King Forever!! <strike>The Oracle Never!!</strike></B></center>
<font size="1" color="red">
<center>Check out The Ron and Fez Show Logs...UPDATED!!!!! (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time I'm done</marquee> </font>

[TooCute]

The direction of evolution isn't towards more complex. Or less complex.

[EDIT: ok, a hint for everybody, in a question: Q: What exploded in the Cambrian Explosion?]

Why do we need a hint for a statement?



<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[DJEvelEd]

We're gonna evolve into a singlesex, non-meat eating, big brained creature. We may all have both vaginas and penises someday. Or we may just have a single organ called a vagenis or penina which we rub together with our friends at social events.

The problem of everyone being the same sex is that you can get fucked at anytime.

ADF Presents:
<IMG SRC="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/djeveled2.gif">
"If It Don't Say F’CEST It Don't Say Shit"

[MizzleTizzle]

Dammit DJ that's exactly 100% right! Shit. Oh well, Next topic...

----

--

-

--

----

just below the surface of what we might call our ordinary lives lie riches

[sr71blackbird]

Its hard to tell sometimes when your talking or being lectured

<center>
http://www.osirusonline.com/sr71.gif </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to Reefdwella for the sig-pic!</B></center>

<center><B><strike>Folgers and Lava</strike></B></center>

<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

[DJEvelEd]

Dammit DJ that's exactly 100% right! Shit. Oh well, Next topic...

I know my shit.

I actually enjoyed talking extensively with Bob Wilson and other Bell Labbers about this kind of shit. It's good shit. I can't get enough of this shit. This thread is da shit!

Please continue,,,

Please talk about the chemical geysers in the ocean and how they support life to this day. I'm like a fucking sponge here,,,

ADF Presents:
<IMG SRC="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/djeveled2.gif">
"If It Don't Say F’CEST It Don't Say Shit"

[FUNKMAN]

The problem of everyone being the same sex is that you can get fucked at anytime.


Yeah! but you'd be able to 'give' as well as you were 'gettin'...

<img src="http://64.177.177.182/katylina/funkmansig.jpg">
i just got sig'd by the sweetest Kat...

[monsterone]

Or we may just have a single organ called a vagenis or penina which we rub together with our friends at social events.



vagenis or penina
can't we just rename democrats and republicans this?


<center><IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=monsterone01">


MO¥+ErO¥E.
moe & steels, you are greatly missed... you too horde king

</center>

[MizzleTizzle]

I actually enjoyed talking extensively with Bob Wilson and other Bell Labbers about this kind of shit.


No WAY ! ! ! I have relatives that used to go drinking with Bob. That's the coolest thing. ever.

just below the surface of what we might call our ordinary lives lie riches

[MizzleTizzle]

Nice double!

And sr71; apologies for lecturing!

I wanna go talk with Bob Wilson !!!!!



This message was edited by MizzleTizzle on 1-19-04 @ 10:03 PM

[East Side Dave]

http://www.interlog.com/~pjenkins/jpegs/wink.gif


I can't stop fucking staring at this!! I feel like Bob Geldof in "The Wall"!! And on a sidenote, can someone who knows science tell me how the phrase "cool beans" evolved??

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif>
Big Ass Mafia

Click this link (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/thenight/ppr/index.shtml) to hear my show on Jersey's 90.5 The Night FM; (weeknights)-
Sunday night/Monday morning through Thursday night/Friday morning- 3 to 5 AM.

[TooCute]

We're gonna evolve into a singlesex, non-meat eating, big brained creature. We may all have both vaginas and penises someday. Or we may just have a single organ called a vagenis or penina which we rub together with our friends at social events.

ehh, I think there are too many constraints and too many reasons that having sex is adaptive for us to evolve back into an asexual or hermaphroditic species.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[DJEvelEd]

Vaginenis/Penigina Theory #1

Women take over the Earth and gradually phase men out of society. In the future, men are used like cows, living in cages and taken out only to be milked dry of sperm. The sperm is stored for future generations. There is no use for men and they are phazed out within 500 years.

*****Fast Forward 1,000,000 years*****

Womens clitoris's are getting larger and more penislike. Some women have clitoris's that are a foot long. Women can give blowjobs to a "Penigina" in the future. Women are envious of others bulges. More and more these "Monster Clits" are used to penetrate holes and thus evolution has fucked us again!

ADF Presents:
<IMG SRC="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/djeveled2.gif">
"If It Don't Say F’CEST It Don't Say Shit"

This message was edited by DJEvelEd on 1-19-04 @ 11:51 PM

[TooCute]

Exhibit one: The pseudopenis of the female hyena (yes, this is a photo of a FEMALE hyena, and yes, she has to give BIRTH through that thing)

<img src="http://www.dhushara.com/book/socio/hyena/hyen.jpg">

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[TooCute]

er nevermind sorry

This message was edited by TooCute on 1-20-04 @ 1:16 AM

[sr71blackbird]

I didnt necessarily mean you mizzle, its ok, I get passionate about stuff too, but usually someone reminds me when I start getting overboard

<center>
http://www.osirusonline.com/sr71.gif </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to Reefdwella for the sig-pic!</B></center>

<center><B><strike>Folgers and Lava</strike></B></center>

<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

[DJEvelEd]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/mycentury/images/w41d550.jpg

Willllsonn

ADF Presents:
<IMG SRC="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/djeveled2.gif">
"If It Don't Say F’CEST It Don't Say Shit"

[Crispy123]

Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939)

I would love to hear what all the great minds that were so cock sure that they knew WHY evolution occurs, even though SCIENTISTS can't agree, have to say about this study.

And please don't stop being condescending pricks just because you're full of crap, it makes me love you even more!!!

[booster11373]

Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939)

I would love to hear what all the great minds that were so cock sure that they knew WHY evolution occurs, even though SCIENTISTS can't agree, have to say about this study.

And please don't stop being condescending pricks just because you're full of crap, it makes me love you even more!!!

So living space and survival are not related?

[StanUpshaw]

I get all my science from PhD students.

http://imgur.com/Ls0vR.jpg

[booster11373]

I get all my science from PhD students.

At least thats better then FOX

[Furtherman]

Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939)

I would love to hear what all the great minds that were so cock sure that they knew WHY evolution occurs, even though SCIENTISTS can't agree, have to say about this study.

And please don't stop being condescending pricks just because you're full of crap, it makes me love you even more!!!

I'm not sure what your point is, the study still supports evolution. Where was it ever written in stone that it's strictly survival of the fittest? This involves one aspect of evolution, not the process as a whole.

I see you capitalized the word wrong, but did you read the whole article?

[StanUpshaw]

I'm not sure what your point is, the study still supports evolution. Where was it ever written in stone that it's strictly survival of the fittest? This involves one aspect of evolution, not the process as a whole.

I see you capitalized the word wrong, but did you read the whole article?

You see, he conceptualizes Darwinism as its own religion. He thinks if you can poke holes in a 150 year old book, then the Darwin Cult will be disillusioned and accept Jesus as their lord and savior. He does not realize that Darwin is nothing but a highly respected personality, the guy who got the ball rolling on the science of evolution. He thinks it's a battle of one dogma against another.

[Crispy123]

So living space and survival are not related?

Yes but the study proposes living space and natural selection aren't.

The new study proposes that really big evolutionary changes happen when animals move into empty areas of living space, not occupied by other animals.

[StanUpshaw]

I don't suppose you bothered to read the actual paper (http://bristol.academia.edu/documents/0094/1038/2010-SahneyBentonFerry-BiologyLetters.pdf)?

[Crispy123]

I'm not sure what your point is, the study still supports evolution. Where was it ever written in stone that it's strictly survival of the fittest? This involves one aspect of evolution, not the process as a whole.

I see you capitalized the word wrong, but did you read the whole article?

This goes back to a discussion in the Ground Zero Mosque thread, where I made the same assertion as you (in bold). That was my point. Please let me know how you get the idea that I don't support evolution.

[booster11373]

You see, he conceptualizes Darwinism as its own religion. He thinks if you can poke holes in a 150 year old book, then the Darwin Cult will be disillusioned and accept Jesus as their lord and savior. He does not realize that Darwin is nothing but a highly respected personality, the guy who got the ball rolling on the science of evolution. He thinks it's a battle of one dogma against another.

Yes but the study proposes living space and natural selection aren't.

Stan makes a great point

[Crispy123]

Stan makes a great point

No. She doesn't.

[booster11373]

No. She doesn't.

So what is your point here?

The fact that the theory can change just shows that scientific examination works

Are you saying that new information should discount the entire theory?

[Furtherman]

This goes back to a discussion in the Ground Zero Mosque thread, where I made the same assertion as you (in bold). That was my point. Please let me know how you get the idea that I don't support evolution.

You're going to have to quote here what you said there because I still have no idea what the point is you are trying to get across.

[Crispy123]

So what is your point here?

The fact that the theory can change just shows that scientific examination works

Are you saying that new information should discount the entire theory?

Jesus tap dancing Christ. :wallbash::wallbash:

Im saying WHY evolution occurs is very much still a mystery.

It happens. It is a process that is observable and proven but the evolutionary process does not always give us the fittest, or the most complex, or the most suitable for the current environment being.

And Mendel did more for the theory of evolution than Darwin ever did.

[booster11373]

Jesus tap dancing Christ. :wallbash::wallbash:

Im saying WHY evolution occurs is very much still a mystery.

It happens. It is a process that is observable and proven but the evolutionary process does not always give us the fittest, or the most complex, or the most suitable for the current environment being.

And Mendel did more for the theory of evolution than Darwin ever did.

And so because of this what exactly?

[Willmore]

Darwin was wrong? Shocker.

Practically every new natural science theory attempts and often succeeds in disproving some or all parts of past theories.

[Furtherman]

Jesus tap dancing Christ. :wallbash::wallbash:

Im saying WHY evolution occurs is very much still a mystery.

It happens. It is a process that is observable and proven but the evolutionary process does not always give us the fittest, or the most complex, or the most suitable for the current environment being.

And Mendel did more for the theory of evolution than Darwin ever did.

No argument here.

[Contra]

Jesus tap dancing Christ. :wallbash::wallbash:

Im saying WHY evolution occurs is very much still a mystery.

It happens. It is a process that is observable and proven but the evolutionary process does not always give us the fittest, or the most complex, or the most suitable for the current environment being.

And Mendel did more for the theory of evolution than Darwin ever did.

Now imagine if this was the first post you made today

[SinA]

This sentence from the article "He imagined a world in which organisms battled for supremacy and only the fittest survived" might be the wrongest summary of evolution I've ever heard.

[Crispy123]

This sentence from the article "He imagined a world in which organisms battled for supremacy and only the fittest survived" might be the wrongest summary of evolution I've ever heard.

That was a summation of natural selection, which is what the study refutes.

[SinA]

This sentence from the article "He imagined a world in which organisms battled for supremacy and only the fittest survived" might be the wrongest summary of evolution I've ever heard.

That was a summation of natural selection, which is what the study refutes.

I take back my claim, the sentence "That was a summation of natural selection, which is what the study refutes." is way wronger.

Natural selection has nothing to do with individual organisms "battling for supremacy" in order to survive. The word "fitness" in On the Origin of Species means "fecundity." Look it up.

A correct statement would have been "He imagined a world in which species competed for resources and only the ones that produced the most viable offspring survived."

[StanUpshaw]

That was a summation of natural selection, which is what the study refutes.

So even after I linked the study for you, you still didn't read it?

The paper does no such thing. By its own terms, it is a "numerical study." It simply shows a correlative statistical relationship between Value A and Value B. It doesn't attempt to explain the relationship, let alone "refute survival of the fittest."


And I'm not even sure you read the entire BBC article, since after the author makes all of these unjustifiable inferences, he quotes a Yale professor that refutes said inferences.


So now that you're backed into a deep dark corner of your own ignorance, feel free to move the goalposts again, and we'll continue to show you how wrong you are.

[Crispy123]

So even after I linked the study for you, you still didn't read it?


Oh yes I followed the links at the bottom of the article that I originally posted.

I perused the full pdf and saw the pretty charts and words.

I did, however read the abstract. Did you??? Im guessing not.

I get all my science from PhD students.

On the abstract, I did read that there were three authors of the study. Paul Ferry the founder of Eikonworks and an engineer, Michael Benton an actual Professor at the University of Bristol, and yes a Doctorol student.


ABSTRACT
Tetrapod biodiversity today is great; over the past 400 Myr since vertebrates moved onto land, global tetrapod diversity has risen exponentially, punctuated by losses during major extinctions. There are links between the total global diversity of tetrapods and the diversity of their ecological roles, yet no one fully understands the interplay of these two aspects of biodiversity and a numerical analysis of this relationship has not so far been undertaken. Here we show that the global taxonomic and ecological diversity of tetrapods are closely linked. Throughout geological time, patterns of global diversity of tetrapod families show 97 per cent correlation with ecological modes. Global taxonomic and ecological diversity of this group correlates closely with the dominant classes of tetrapods (amphibians in the Palaeozoic, reptiles in the Mesozoic, birds and mammals in the Cenozoic). These groups have driven ecological diversity by expansion and contraction of occupied ecospace, rather than by direct competition within existing ecospace and each group has used ecospace at a greater rate than their predecessors.

[SinA]

It's hard to tell who's taking what position in a 6 year old thread, but this sounds to me like a pretty strong argument in support of Natural Selection:
These groups have driven ecological diversity by expansion and contraction of occupied ecospace, rather than by direct competition within existing ecospace and each group has used ecospace at a greater rate than their predecessors.

If the ecosystem expands, the supply of resources is greater in proportion to competition, threats are in lower proportion. Mutations still happen at the same (random) rate and diversity is not selected against. When the ecosystem is crowded there would be more competition.

In evolutionary theory, that creates what's called "punctuated equilibrium."

The growth graph is same same same same same same DIFFERENT same same same

[Crispy123]

It's hard to tell who's taking what position in a 6 year old thread, but this sounds to me like a pretty strong argument in support of Natural Selection:

These groups have driven ecological diversity by expansion and contraction of occupied ecospace, rather than by direct competition within existing ecospace and each group has used ecospace at a greater rate than their predecessors.

yeah I figured I helped derail the other thread for a few pages I might hop into the middle of an existing one that is semi-on topic, even if it is a few years old.

but no natural selection says that in an existing environment, unlimited population growth can't be supported and competition for resources forces evolution to favor one species or trait over another. What this study says is that the availability or not of living space forces the species to evolve or adapt and that major chamges occur in a species when a "new" ecospace opens up.

im not saying I buy it completely either way, just that there is nothing known for certain. And both are congruent with the idea of punctuated equilibrium they just don't agree on the cause.

And so because of this what exactly?

This came up in the course of another tangent discussing atheism and religion. I think religion and faith serve a purpose in the human species and that all is not known or answerable in science. leaving open the possibility (in my mind the probablity) that there are greater forces at work in the universe than we can comprehend.

Evolution was brought up, not by me, and I simply made the statement that it is not known why it occurs. Since that statement can't be argued with reasonably, the attempt was made to paint me as some kind of crusading Christion creatonist (which couldn't be farther from the truth of my beleifs) and attack that.

I thought it was just kind of ironic that this paper made the news recently in light of the previous discussion and I wanted to see what others make of it.

[booster11373]

yeah I figured I helped derail the other thread for a few pages I might hop into the middle of an existing one that is semi-on topic, even if it is a few years old.

but no natural selection says that in an existing environment, unlimited population growth can't be supported and competition for resources forces evolution to favor one species or trait over another. What this study says is that the availability or not of living space forces the species to evolve or adapt and that major chamges occur in a species when a "new" ecospace opens up.

im not saying I buy it completely either way, just that there is nothing known for certain. And both are congruent with the idea of punctuated equilibrium they just don't agree on the cause.



This came up in the course of another tangent discussing atheism and religion. I think religion and faith serve a purpose in the human species and that all is not known or answerable in science. leaving open the possibility (in my mind the probablity) that there are greater forces at work in the universe than we can comprehend.

Evolution was brought up, not by me, and I simply made the statement that it is not known why it occurs. Since that statement can't be argued with reasonably, the attempt was made to paint me as some kind of crusading Christion creatonist (which couldn't be farther from the truth of my beleifs) and attack that.

I thought it was just kind of ironic that this paper made the news recently in light of the previous discussion and I wanted to see what others make of it.

I see this as a perfect example of how science works and shows that all ideas are open to re-examination and continued review.

The only believers that I ever see really going out of their way to destroy or discredit evolution are bible literalists

Any other believers should be able to make some kind of agreement between evolution and God

[Crispy123]

I see this as a perfect example of how science works and shows that all ideas are open to re-examination and continued review.

The only believers that I ever see really going out of their way to destroy or discredit evolution are bible literalists

Any other believers should be able to make some kind of agreement between evolution and God

I agree with this completely.

Still, even in this thread with the first post I made about not knowing why evolution occurs people were seeing me as anti-evolution.

[LordJezo]

Creationism 4 Life, yo.

Really.

Faith makes life much simpler.

[ChrisBrown]

Creationism 4 Life, yo.

Really.

Faith makes life much simpler.

this sounds like EXTREME christianity, Steven Baldwin style, yo

[LordJezo]

this sounds like EXTREME christianity, Steven Baldwin style, yo

Eh.

I figure if I believe in it all and and it's true when die I get to go to Heaven.

If I don't believe in any of it act like a cynic and I die I am screwed.

If I believe in it all and everything is wrong and when we die everything just stops, then it wont matter.

I'd rather minimize my odds of eternal torment the best I can.

[StanUpshaw]

:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

[LordJezo]

:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

Oh that's pretty awesome. I think like a famous philosopher. I have never read about this before but it's basically my thought process.

[RoseBlood]

Eh.

I figure if I believe in it all and and it's true when die I get to go to Heaven.

If I don't believe in any of it act like a cynic and I die I am screwed.

If I believe in it all and everything is wrong and when we die everything just stops, then it wont matter.

I'd rather minimize my odds of eternal torment the best I can.

You're trying to use logic and reason to get into "Heaven"?

Silly Jezo, the only way to get there is with blind Faith. :innocent:

[ChrisBrown]

Eh.

I figure if I believe in it all and and it's true when die I get to go to Heaven.

If I don't believe in any of it act like a cynic and I die I am screwed.

If I believe in it all and everything is wrong and when we die everything just stops, then it wont matter.

I'd rather minimize my odds of eternal torment the best I can.

I always thought you are Jewish

[LordJezo]

Silly Jezo, the only way to get there is with blind Faith. :innocent:

Naa, just accept Jesus as Lord and savior and you are pretty much good to go. Nothing else works. You can be as good of a person as you want but if you don't do that one thing, or be Jewish, you wont make it.

[CountryBob]

Naa, just accept Jesus as Lord and savior and you are pretty much good to go. Nothing else works. You can be as good of a person as you want but if you don't do that one thing, or be Jewish, you wont make it.

Do you think that by just accepting Jesus that will get you into Heaven because of your idea of I'd better believe because if its real, and I dont believe, I'm screwed? God would know that you are an imposter just hedging your bets and not a true faithful believer in Jesus and in Christianity...access denied!

[Zorro]

At least thats better then FOX

...than Fox

[LordJezo]

Do you think that by just accepting Jesus that will get you into Heaven because of your idea of I'd better believe because if its real, and I dont believe, I'm screwed? God would know that you are an imposter just hedging your bets and not a true faithful believer in Jesus and in Christianity...access denied!

Nope, it's deeper than that, I have me some real faith, but this is a message board so it's pointless to discuss.

[CountryBob]

I dont blame you for not giving more faith info - this message board is overwhelmingly voiced by non believers and you'll just be attacked.

[Furtherman]

Jezo gets attacked for many other various reasons. His "faith" is the least of them.

[Crispy123]

I dont blame you for not giving more faith info - this message board is overwhelmingly voiced by non believers and you'll just be attacked.

I'm pretty sure I read this somewhere in the Bible.

Don't talk about faith to non-believers and be scared of the words you might here.

Totally WWJD stuff right there.

[Chigworthy]

I dont blame you for not giving more faith info - this message board is overwhelmingly voiced by non believers and you'll just be attacked.

I'd love to see some of these attacks. There must be an overwhelming number of them.

[SinA]

I dont blame you for not giving more faith info - this message board is overwhelmingly voiced by non believers and you'll just be attacked.

I once tried to start a club for agnostics, but it kept getting overrun by atheists and zealots.
"Agnostics only," I would say, but they wouldn't listen.
Both sides of that debate are tards, as far as I'm concerned.